Speaking before the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday, US Trade Representative Ron Kirk touted the openness and transparency of negotiations over the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and the newer Trans Pacific Partnership. Both of those contain numerous copyright and patent provisions. Kirk's statements are sharply at odds with those of the treaties' critics, who say they have been shut out of negotiations.

The day before Wednesday's hearing, a legal advisor to the State Department sent Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) a letter. It argued that ACTA is a "legally binding international agreement," but the Senate doesn't need to ratify it. Why? The advisor, Harold Koh, argues the negotiations were authorized by the 2008 PRO-IP Act. He claimed that because no legislative changes will be required to bring the US into compliance with ACTA, the Obama administration can accept it unilaterally without consulting the Senate, which must ratify all treaties.

But Wyden (D-OR), a leading critic of ACTA, wasn't convinced.

"It seems to me that this really boxes the Congress in on some very important questions," he told Kirk at a Wednesday hearing. "The Congress is now going to have to be looking over our shoulder with respect to whether or not we've done something that could cause an ACTA party nation to sue us."

"All over the world, you've got parliaments and legislators having debates on whether or not to pass ACTA," Wyden continued. "Why shouldn't the United States Senate consider something like this? As you know, the traditional practice is when something is considered a treaty—a binding agreement—it comes before the Senate."

"Congress has frankly asked us to act," Kirk responded. He again pointed to the 2008 PRO-IP Act as authorizing the ACTA negotiations.

At the same hearing, Wyden pressed Kirk on the transparency of the ACTA and TPP negotiations. "The public, particularly those who feel so strongly about this issue, feels shut out," he said. He suggested the negotiation process was not "in line with the president's commitment to transparency and open government."

Kirk didn't flinch. "We have engaged in more public consultations over this Trans-Pacific Partnership, probably by tenfold," he said. "We have had stakeholders participate as observers in a number of our sessions, including those that are concerned about these issues."

"I would defend our record for transparency, for inclusion of all groups, against any other administration," Kirk told Wyden.

If you listen closely to the video of the exchange, you can almost hear Wyden's jaw hit the table. "Right now, there is a requirement for a security clearance to see TPP texts and documents," Wyden noted with a hint of exasperation in his voice.

Transparency theater

Ars asked Margot Kaminksi, the executive director of Yale's Information Society Project, to comment on the debate. "The so-called stakeholder participation in negotiations of the Trans-Pacific Partnership has been transparency theater, not real transparency," she told us. "At the instigation of USTR, all negotiators were made to sign a confidentiality agreement back in March 2010 that does not allow disclosure of documents until four years after the treaty has been signed."

Kaminski described a "public briefing" on the treaty she attended in Peru last October. "Negotiators did not in fact brief us on the substance of the text," she said. "They refused to answer questions of any substance, including basic questions such as whether a draft text would be released before signature."

Many others have complained of being shut out of the negotiations. For example, Sean Flynn is an American University scholar and a TPP critic who attempted to organize an information session at the same California hotel as a TPP negotiating session. The conference room Flynn reserved was abruptly cancelled by the hotel. Similarly, public-interest groups like Public Knowledge have been complaining bitterly for months that they have been blocked from even seeing copies of draft agreements.

As someone already replied on your very link. But either, way, keep talking about BS issues, while the likes of Obama, Bush, Romney, and all other puppets enact Patriot acts, airport radiation scanners, ACTA, and eventully knocks on your door.

Quote:

Wow, what a hack job. This article creates more smoke than light. In your haste to try to get progressives not to consider Paul as an alternative in 2012, you present a few positions without any context at all. This kind of hatchet job is akin to someone comparing Obama to a dictator because of his health insurance mandate. Same kind of narrow, out of context, skewering going on here.

Furthermore, if you don't think that the world's central banking system is not the #1 issue facing us in the world today, I doubt you know very much about economics on a macro level. Just about EVERY problem we face in the world starts there, and that includes not just world debt and a worldwide recession heading into depression, but wars, loss of freedoms, immigration issues, and the environment.

Here is your opportunity to participate again in an existing internet upraising against ACTA.Petition Against ACTA the second round for the WIN!

Quote:

In days, the European Commission will try a last ditch attempt to revive ACTA. But we can shine a light on their dirty trick and foil their plans.

Governments are turning their back on ACTA one by one, so the EC is asking their Court of Justice to give the treaty the greenlight and renew its momentum -- but they plan to manipulate the process by giving the court only a narrow, uncontroversial question to consider, hoping it will lead to a positive outcome.

We can push the court to see though the EC's ploy and look at all the legal implications of this censorship treaty on our freedoms -- forcing a negative decision that kills ACTA for good. Sign the petition now:

Vote Ron Paul, then again wont matter. The system will only allow choice of their approved puppet, just like USSR in the last century. Gotta give the illusion of choice to the sheeple.

I'm sorry, how does electing Ron Paul solve this problem, again?

Hint: Pay _very_ close attention to he whom those in power wish would shut up and go away!

I'd gladly accept his right to his opinions that I disagree with since we both agree and could make some real progress on issues such as the bullshit war on drugs and dumb-ass American imperialism. Romney's comments make him the poster child for these dumb-asses; his foreign policy might as well be described as "lets go beat up some brown people."

Ron Paul is the only government official that I've ever heard speak out in public about the harm that our government's covert operations in the past did to the _people_ of Iran. That's why they hate us; I'd hate us too.

Wikipedia wrote:

In 1953 US President Dwight D. Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax. The operation was successful, and Mosaddegh was arrested on 19 August 1953. The coup was the first time the US had openly overthrown an elected, civilian government.

Ahhhh.. but that's politics 101 these days. You can just say whatever you want regardless of reality. Then allow your supporters to shout down, insult or just pretend any naysayers are idiots. We all chuckle when its done to the other guy's position. Kinda sucks when its done to your position though.

Once again, what about Ron Paul's known platform makes you think he'll stop the attempted ramping up and export of American-style IP law?

Go listen to his own words on SOPA/PIPA from any number of recent debates. Actually, it's best if you listen to a number of them in turn, so you can hear that he, alone among the candidates out there, has been consistently against this shit. You get, at best, weasel words from the rest, but Ron Paul calls bullshit, and uses the constitution to back up his views.

Vote Ron Paul, then again wont matter. The system will only allow choice of their approved puppet, just like USSR in the last century. Gotta give the illusion of choice to the sheeple.

I'm sorry, how does electing Ron Paul solve this problem, again?

Hint: Pay _very_ close attention to he whom those in power wish would shut up and go away!

I'd gladly accept his right to his opinions that I disagree with since we both agree and could make some real progress on issues such as the bullshit war on drugs and dumb-ass American imperialism. Romney's comments make him the poster child for these dumb-asses; his foreign policy might as well be described as "lets go beat up some brown people."

Ron Paul is the only government official that I've ever heard speak out in public about the harm that our government's covert operations in the past did to the _people_ of Iran. That's why they hate us; I'd hate us too.

Wikipedia wrote:

In 1953 US President Dwight D. Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax. The operation was successful, and Mosaddegh was arrested on 19 August 1953. The coup was the first time the US had openly overthrown an elected, civilian government.

The reason the mainstream media doesn't take Ron Paul seriously isn't because electing him would help the little guy gain some balance of power back against the big guys, it's because his policies would run the economy and nation straight into the ground too fast. The right-wing is in the business of boiling the frog slowly, which is why you still will hear people who think trickle-down economics is real and works.

The extremely wealthy love the typical republicans because their fiscal policies align with allowing them to suck the life-blood out of the American economy and they don't care about idiotic morality legislation since they don't have to actually live within the confines of the USA. Everyone else who loves the republicans is either very confused about their actual own interests and how they relate to the economy and what's been done to it over the last 31 years, or is too concerned with making sure gays aren't allowed to have a foothold of legal equality with them.

I'm amazed and saddened... I grew up during the tail end of the cold war and hear horror stories about the soviet union and the police state it imposed on it's people... will the next generation grow up hearing the same stories about the United States?

Vote Ron Paul, then again wont matter. The system will only allow choice of their approved puppet, just like USSR in the last century. Gotta give the illusion of choice to the sheeple.

I'm sorry, how does electing Ron Paul solve this problem, again?

Ron Kirk is an arm of the Executive Branch speaking out against what the US Constitution says about only the US Senate can ratify treaties, especially international treaties. Getting Ron Paul as President (Head of Executive Branch) would end all of this because he would likely end all this regulation and leave it up to companies to sue for any copyright or trademark infringements.

I'm amazed and saddened... I grew up during the tail end of the cold war and hear horror stories about the soviet union and the police state it imposed on it's people... will the next generation grow up hearing the same stories about the United States?

This country will not make it as far the the USSR did in squashing civil liberties. Its only a matter of time and this country will fracture forever or reset to the standards of the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution.

The day before Wednesday's hearing, a legal advisor to the State Department sent Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) a letter. It argued that ACTA is a "legally binding international agreement," but the Senate doesn't need to ratify it. Why? The advisor, Harold Koh, argues the negotiations were authorized by the 2008 PRO-IP Act. He claimed that because no legislative changes will be required to bring the US into compliance with ACTA, the Obama administration can accept it unilaterally without consulting the Senate, which must ratify all treaties.

This is the most maddening and frightening thing about all of this. I guess in the copy of the Constitution that Mr. Koh owns it says "[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur....except when no U.S. laws need to be changed to bring the U.S. into compliance".

It seems that President Obama has jumped wholeheartedly on President Bush's bandwagon when it comes to expanding the powers of the Executive.

Lets just go ahead and get rid of Articles I and III while we're at it....who needs checks and balances.

EDIT: the U.S....not the us. Adding proper titles to our Presidents' names...due respect for the office if not the men.

I'm seeing classic lie detection signs apparent when The "Honorable" Ronald Kirk is talking. Shaking his head sometimes when he says something in the affirmative. Blinking rapidly. Hand distraction from eyes.

Suuuuuuuspect.

I also love how he says "we're so open!" while saying "no one will sit at the table and negotiate with us" if the text is made public.

The reason the mainstream media doesn't take Ron Paul seriously isn't because electing him would help the little guy gain some balance of power back against the big guys, it's because his policies would run the economy and nation straight into the ground too fast. The right-wing is in the business of boiling the frog slowly, which is why you still will hear people who think trickle-down economics is real and works.

The extremely wealthy love the typical republicans because their fiscal policies align with allowing them to suck the life-blood out of the American economy and they don't care about idiotic morality legislation since they don't have to actually live within the confines of the USA. Everyone else who loves the republicans is either very confused about their actual own interests and how they relate to the economy and what's been done to it over the last 31 years, or is too concerned with making sure gays aren't allowed to have a foothold of legal equality with them.

So in other words, the Obama administration is set on their ways, and they'll only deal with Hollywood, just like they've always had and maybe some companies like EA, Microsoft or Apple to pretend they are "pro-tech", too, and are not just listening to one side (not to mention that those companies are generally on Hollywood's side, anyway).

The only reason the Obama administration sort of disagreed with SOPA in the twelfth hour is because the SOPA creator already said he would back off, and they realized the opposition is too strong, so they might as well get the electoral benefit by pretending to be on "our side".

But make no mistake, the Obama administration has closer ties with Hollywood/MPAA and RIAA than any administration in recent history. Some of the top officials in the Obama admin are former MPAA/RIAA executives/lawyers. So unless SOPA 2.0/ACTA/TPP or whatever such legislation comes next doesn't meet the same kind of opposition that SOPA had, you can rest assured that Obama will sign those bills, and probably without a "reluctancy" clause added to it, too, like he did for NDAA.

NEVER trust a politician, ESPECIALLY when they ask that you believe in them/have faith in them/etc. That was always my big problem with Obama, he was either dooming supporters to broken hearts/faiths/spirits or insulting the intelligence of the rest of us who knew better.

Timothy B. Lee / Timothy covers tech policy for Ars, with a particular focus on patent and copyright law, privacy, free speech, and open government. His writing has appeared in Slate, Reason, Wired, and the New York Times.